tv [untitled] May 2, 2014 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT
thank you for your support >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi i'm alice is member of the liberate hill association this is my third time here. i want to say the liberate hill association has been around for over thirty years it's through this organization we got a designated historic neighborhood. we take our rockets as being securities of the neighborhood she serial for example, we put in sidewalk gardens along the whole hill street neighborhood both sides. we did that because we want to help the city get the water back into the grounded and take care of our neighborhood. i want to review the pictures one more time. here's one block from the site.
do you notice it's all fitting into the historic neighborhood. even the new building that's very tall and you see it stepping down it attempts to a blend into the neighborhood. i don't see how this attempts to fit into the neighborhood. i see glass and there's no attempt to try to fit into the neighborhood. there's no attempt to talk to us to fit into the neighborhood. here's an example once again what it looks like now. anyway, i'm just quickly and here's an example of one of our gardens that went into two weeks ago. so thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm with the law association
i'm secretary there. my views on the building i've sat here many times nothing has changed but i would like to say that just to observe that in my observation correct or incorrect i'm seeing false conflicts between interests being laid out here that are false conflicts the first december decision made of the fourth floors this is somehow a project that is against affordable housing none of it is true we've come out and made formal statements this was a false conflict and tonight wearing my marsh label i'm wanting to protect the protections that were put into
place in february statement and yet i'm president whatever the right thing to happen for 1050 van ness what we had in december or get a what was put out in february to work but standing by that as well so dollars a little bit of a process conflict there. it is a false conflict in the neighborhood. i wanted to say that >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm judy i'm a fan of the march i think it's one of the few intelligent theater companies in san francisco. i've been happy you've set stipulations to protect it as an ongoing entity i'm asking you to deny the rehearing request the basic issue is are the developers working with the
marsh and neighborhood. i don't see signs that they are. they said just now that the neighborhood association i heard them speak here you all heard them i recognize you at this point they got up and left i see they came back when we all got up to speak i don't see signs they're interested in hearing us and the only signs for the hours of construction and with stipulations to invite potential new neighbors are designed to protect the marsh and the neighborhood and i think you need to keep those otherwise they don't show signs of respecting those i hope they'll continue to work with the marsh i don't see any reason why they can't but i hope you'll keep up
the stipulations. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi there i'm disciplinarian i'm a 278 resident of san francisco and homeowner and i've been a longed fan of the marsh. i ask you to deny the rehearing the permit holder statistics in his conditions their patently unfair and render the project economically unfeasible. he sites that the limitation of construction hours are among those are unfair so i want to read part of a letter from a construction manager to the board and submit the entire letter for the record on the construction hours. to the board of appeals i've been a construction project manager my experience is capital
for google and real estate manager and manager for design for cisco systems i've worked with a local contract and among them (calling names) i have reviewed the board of appeals approved conditions for the mixed use project at the 1058 van ness street and based on my experience on the scope of this project the time limit is fair and reasonable additionally i believe the increased hours that the developer is requesting is are based on issues of convenience and not practical feasibility. i agree with this issue and ask you to reconsider the hearing thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm lisa i'm the president of
the liberate hill neighborhood association. i'll make that short there was a comment made that liberate hill residents have not been showing up at the hearings i'm here to tell you we're here alive and well, and clivently been coming we don't like what's been doing with the building please deny the appeal for the rehearing. the decision you made in depress what was a reasonable one even though the building is hardly what i'll call historic for the neighborhood. the noise during construction effects marsh and the entire neighborhood and even though i live on a small street behind
van ness roughly oppose i'm already dealing with the noise from construction of a big construction on barry let street we're surrounded by construction noise day to day. it make sense to restriction not only for the marsh but for the hours of construction for the neighbors. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners good evening i'm a san francisco resident perform of the marsh a sunshine ordinance was submitted to the entertainment commission and asked which of the 8 theories had permits (calling names) and the current theatre.
the entertainment commission ripped only the war field and the audience transform have permits to its not generally known or enforced if you ask stephanie the marsh has filed for an entertainment permit i'd like to submit the sunshine owners and for the administrative record if you'll accept it. that's my >> thank you. next speaker, please >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm barbara russel i'm the oldest resident of liberate hill. i lived on hill street most of the years specifically two years to be exactly because my son was born and i you bought another
building on fairoaks and 22nd so i'm involved in what's going on. we have more many, many years in full support of this we've fought drug dealings and everything we've foughtblast cross green cross whatever are trying to keep the neighborhood save. this man was telling falsehoods this person we're not united and liberate hill didn't care. wearing us down here this is not the third but fourth hearing. to me four stories with that urge building there's no saving grass to it the architect was saying that looked ugly and the floor was only 4 floors it's
ugly anyway, there's no historic value to that building we love where we live and we've fought a lot to keep it from falling apart we put in the plantings on gaga error street and other streets to follow and have a beautiful area but this building i don't know. i can't say enough about it was hard for me to come down her - here thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm john i'm a 20-year resident of hill street
and a 40 year resident of the mission district. i've been here before i want to reiterate or say, i think that what is shown tonight is that those builders developers have no respect either for the neighborhood or the cultureal institutions of this city and the city is defined by it's neighborhoods and culture and this building is a knife in both i urge you to put back to your decision of december to make this building only four stories and he uphold our decision of february >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is howard i'd like to speak in favor of the marshes position. i've had an opportunity to live
in this city since 1972 i came here where cheap places for housing for artists. over the years a lot has changed we live in a society where corporations has the same rights as humans we have affordable housing and have a lot of things that make life really difficult and tense on a daily level if you're going to do a nonprofit you learn you go into the neighborhood and try to build your organization and work with the people in the neighborhood. there's an arrogance that exists in america that corporations can gho in and do what we want we have politicians that raise
money to get elected instead of doing things or finding consultants to help them get the money. i think what you have to look at here you made a decision and you hold the public trust. and i think you made the decision right when i was here in december i know that's the best thing that ever happened to me at city hall people made a decision that i agreed with certainly much better than the time i came down here and got a marriage license so, please uphold the decision you made in december and put those corporations in a place where they have to go in and work with the people in the neighborhoods like 9 little nonprofits
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm here tonight this is our 5 year anniversary of threatening with 1050 van ness it was on april 9, 2009, at 6 o'clock the gentleman first presented his plans at the neighborhood association meeting the reaction that has been repeated by the historic presently commission and the planning commission and the community at large has been the same. the mass of the building is incapable with the historic cultureal and architecture fabric of the neighborhood. the project sponsor has not done his adolescence he didn't come into the neighborhood to see there was a theatre nearby he has only acted to advance his
financial goals. no matter you how many unit there are they won't loyalty our housing countries condo are not affordable and the concept is the prices will go down seems to work as trickle down economics please uphold your december decision and a four story building is the best compromise thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners i'm chip i'd like to thank you for the encourage you've shown here in dealing with this issue and not rubber stamping anything you do consider with the public what they want and need regarding this matter. i'm dismayed we have to come
here again. i am asking you deny the request for a rehearing and consider for a second how many members of the public are standing her in support of the project here. this is not we're popular with the public those are the people who have a financial interest and that's all they care about but we have a stake in our community and we're going to be here every single time they come back her. thank you for your decisions in the past and i hope you end this hearing hearing us tonight >> is there any public comment? okay. seeing none commissioners the matter it submitted. >> and for the record i know i wasn't here at the last hearing
i viewed the video and i'm comfortable deliberating on this. >> would you care to offer anything? >> you want to put me on the spotty wasn't here for the december decision but i will stand by the decision, however, i think today, i would be inclined to deny the rehearing request because i didn't hear anything new or of substance that will effect a material that would change the decisions that were made previously so i don't know there's a manifestation of justice. at least what i heard with respect to the feasibility or the impacts that's part of the
what has to be factored ♪ buildings in san francisco. so i'd be disinclined to grant the rehearing request actually of either requester >> i would agree but i'd like to push it out a little bit more. some of the technical points brought in the brief was hard to understand the logic as to why it would have additional costs i don't see anything that specifically pinpointed the potential economic. and on the other requests for the hearing i have to say that
some of us wind up changing our minds to the not also fixed and that i also would resist the comments made there that we succumb to a certain types of pressure i don't read the writers writing so on that basis i don't think that procured at least to this particular commission >> i'll add that i did take offense that at that acquisition we didn't have a verify that applied to the case and read the cases and got the advise of the city attorney and went through a through thorough thorough process and applied the facts i personally take offense at any
determination that was made other than the facts and the applicable local regulations as well as state law so i'll vote to deny both appeals. >> so i was the only one originally who find that charge offensive i evaluate that open the information and on the advice of the city attorney as well so i'll concur with that. >> i say other than the lack of merits i'll stand by our original decision and deny the appeal. >> care to make a motion. >> i'll move to deny both appeals on the basis there are no new material facts that effect our determination or manifestation in justice. >> deny all rehearing.
>> all 4. >> or 6. >> on that motion from the vice president to deny all of for rehearing requests. on that motion. commissioner fung. congressmen. commissioner president hwang commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero and the rehearing requests are denied >> 5 minute break. >> welcome back to the san francisco budget & finance committee we're ready to call group one for the at&t public
works this is item 1 ralph street and item 121257 church street and appeal next is 1503 jones street. which is 31530th avenue and 17 toil next is 752 aaron district attorney street and the next is balboa street and as an carlos street and item next is 121 as an carlos street and the next is 305 elsie street and the next is 415 germany rad street we'll start with at&t. mr. johnson you have 5 minutes
to present your case >> so the fact patterns for those eight or nine appeals i'm going to talk about ralph street. so in this particular application was submitted in may 2013 there wasn't another hearing for 8 most in january 2014. at the hearing lynn fong adhered and said at&t applications was in corners with the public works code. at the hearing it was discussed and the hearing officer was told during a box walk an additional location had been identified in addition to the alternative location was on howard street.
no members of the community appeared at the hearing to protest. the hearing officer recommended denying this permit application essentially on the basis that an alternative location has been identified as potentially feasible that may have less of on impact the problem is the hearing officer under the s m f order didn't have the discretion but i want to point out the hearing officer had not option into in this permit application and in the rest the group and it's something commissioner president lazarus you asked what if there's a boxed walk another
location would be okay. and the hearing officer could have done and probably should have done and the board ordered this evening it should have held the order open for thirty days and have at&t see about the other locations and taking take a written public comment from the public and made a recommendation at the thirty day period. certainly one reasonable way for the board to deal with this cluster is simply require the hearing officer and department follow their own rules. that's essentially what we're asking for. that's what i have to say open this cluster i'll be happy to a answer questions
>> a question is there anything that - so you've lead a box walk and the neighbors helped to identify an alternative side and at&t found at least some of the alternatives to the acceptable. >> yes. >> what's to stop you at this point from going out and noticing an alternative site. >> we're required under the s m f order with our relationship to the department to get permission before we notice. >> how do you get permission. >> we have to contact the department of public works and request permission for renotice. >> there's 0 nothing from stopping you. >> when somewhere like that have been done in the past we've
been notified by the department we're originally required to give notice until we get an e-mail saying you can notice a proposed location. so we don't have particle speaking the authority to notice the locations we want >> but you have the ability to notice that that will reduce the time that lapses on those. >> that's exactly what is provided for under the rules. if there are additional proposed locations that the hearing officer should be considering under this this rule on your screen he holds up the hearing and at&t has 3 days to tell the hearing officer whether those locations will work >> maybe i'm missing here so
going out on the walk you've identified an alternative location there's all the time this you might be acceptable rather than waiting from going back to a hearing officer what does at&t say we want permission to expedite this particular location. >> you know i believe that we can probably contact the department and request workout some procure but again i'll point out the pro bono problem here that's not contemplated by the - >> it's in the prevented either. >> it's not prevented but as i think is pretty clear the department has not been following it's on realize and
the hearing officer has not been exercising his discretion within the s m f order he's permitted to approve one of the property locations he's not required to request public no less but can he can approve with modifications or hold the hearing open. we suggest if you're not going to reserve the other appropriate solution is to have the department follow the rules. if the hearing officer had concerns with better locations that would be discussed during the box walks held the hearing open and taken the written comments and made a decision. >> along those same line